Institutional Prestige vs Program Prestige For Interdisciplinary Field?

[marshwiggle]

secundum_artem was too polite: you're not competitive for a 4/4 teaching job with a Harvard PhD at most places.  Add in the interdisciplinary humanities area and spork's articles seem optimistic on job prospects.

If you're already working an admin or outreach job, then an online relevant master's degree is a better job bet, especially if you want to continue to live in the same town.

So, for a host of reasons (primarily my admin job) I'm well aware of the abysmal job market. That being said: the Harvard program places %60ish percent of its graduates straight into TT jobs (mostly at public and private R1s). Another 20% do post docs for 1-3 years before landing a TT job. The other 20 pursue alt-ac or non academic jobs. I spent a few days digging up information about cohort placements of the program for the last 10 years/and talking to graduates-so it's not just PR website rhetoric. The job market is an absolute shithole-but I feel like I'm missing something with the totalizing rhetoric. Factually speaking, the majority of graduates of both programs are getting tenure track jobs. How do you account for that?

polly_mer is not in the humanities, and her only experience of the humanities has been at abysmal tiny schools with no graduate programs, so that's how you account for that.

Look, the odds are terrible, but you know that. Interdisciplinary programs are extra hard, but you know that too. If you're passionate about the work and you have the chance to study something you love for a few years while not getting into debt, then do it. You're going in with eyes pretty open; keep one of those eyes out for alt-ac development options (digital humanities groups are a great place to get some skills), do everything you can to bolster your teaching portfolio, and don't expect an academic job on the other end. Maybe you'll be pleasantly surprised, maybe not. But you will have spent a few years of your life working on something you truly love.

If the bolded parts were tatooed on the foreheads on all PhD candidates, we'd have much less debate on these topics.

[jerseyjay]

Just a reaction to two comments.

First, that being a Harvard PhD makes you not competitive for a position at a 4:4 school.  I disagree. I teach at a 4:4 school, and a significant number of recent hires have degrees from Ivy League schools. And beyond that, most of the others have degrees from top notch public or private schools. Relatively few have degrees from lower ranked doctoral institutions whose students may be closer to our demographic.

Having a PhD from an Ivy League, by itself, will not qualify you for a job at my school. And it could be a sign of being to focused on specialization and research, two things that are not particularly  useful at a school whose focus is on teaching a wide range of courses to students who  are often the product of deficient public schools. So many Ivy League degree holders don't make it past the first stage of the job search here.

However, an Ivy League or similar PhD holder who is able to show experience and interest in our type of school would be viewed very well.  So my advice in general is if you are going to get a PhD in the humanities, go to as prestigious a school as possible but teach as many different classes as possible, maybe by adjuncting at a local community college or public teaching school.

Still, that probably wouldn't help you at my department right now, because we are not hiring anybody, and will probably not have a line until, well, ever.

Which brings me to my second point. By all means go to graduate school in the humanities if you truly like your subject, you get a good package from a prestigious school, and you are, genuinely, okay with the fact that it is very unlikely you will get a full time job (and in any case, one that pays better than most other jobs you could find right now).

But please don't do it because graduate school means "doing something you love." I love history. I love reading about history, I love researching history. I love teaching history. I love talking about history with my friends. I love visiting historical archives on my holidays.

That said, I hated graduate school. Until I got through all my coursework (or actually, transferred to a British university after studying for several years in the US) I hated graduate school. It was made up of skimming (not reading) endless monographs without the time or attention span to actually savor them; learning to talk about books I hadn't read; focusing more on what other people have said about history instead of learning about history itself. I am not arguing that this is not necessary for the professional formation of a historian. It is quite useful to me now. But it was not fun, much less "something I love".

Only once I started my dissertation was I able to actually focus on research, which is what I love. And only after I finished my dissertation was I able to take the time to sit down and enjoy reading a history book.

So my advice, for what it is worth, is if you love a subject, forget about graduate school that probably won't get you a job and probably won't be enjoyable, and instead get a job in some office job you can leave at the end of the day. And read books you find enjoyable on the train to work, and at home in the evening.

That of course is not the question that the OP asked, however.

[polly_mer]

secundum_artem was too polite: you're not competitive for a 4/4 teaching job with a Harvard PhD at most places.  Add in the interdisciplinary humanities area and spork's articles seem optimistic on job prospects.

If you're already working an admin or outreach job, then an online relevant master's degree is a better job bet, especially if you want to continue to live in the same town.

So, for a host of reasons (primarily my admin job) I'm well aware of the abysmal job market. That being said: the Harvard program places %60ish percent of its graduates straight into TT jobs (mostly at public and private R1s). Another 20% do post docs for 1-3 years before landing a TT job. The other 20 pursue alt-ac or non academic jobs. I spent a few days digging up information about cohort placements of the program for the last 10 years/and talking to graduates-so it's not just PR website rhetoric. The job market is an absolute shithole-but I feel like I'm missing something with the totalizing rhetoric. Factually speaking, the majority of graduates of both programs are getting tenure track jobs. How do you account for that?

What percentage of the people who start the program graduate from the program in a reasonable amount of time?  I can think of several situations where only a small percentage of the people who start actually graduate.  Thus, looking only at placement of graduates is missing a key piece of information.

How many students at any one time do either programs have?  I, personally, would be much more optimistic if the program only admits a handful of people each year, fully funds them, and nurtures them such that they are serving apprenticeships through to launching as junior faculty.

Are those TT statistics still true for the cohorts who started in the past 3-5 years and graduated in the past year or so?  What happened to people who graduated 8 years ago is almost irrelevant now.  If the people who started a few years ago are graduating in a reasonable time and are still getting placed almost immediately into TT positions or good TT positions after only a year as a postdoc, then, sure, this might be a good program.

Most important for you, how many people who have backgrounds like yours in the past few years have graduated in a timely manner and gotten a TT position like the one you want?  The humanities quit lit and often overlapping anger lit has a non-insignificant fraction of people who quit because when they finally got the job they were sure they wanted, it turned out to be much less desirable in the reality than the abstract.  That is more likely to be true for people who didn't grow up in the elite universe and thus are still seen as outsiders (a possibility for you based on information in this thread).  That is more likely to be true for people who leave their supportive communities and family for a prestigious job that turns out to not be nearly as day-to-day important as having a "lesser life" filled with family, friends, hobbies, and a good enough job.

I would also look very carefully at cost of living.  Harvard may pay slightly more than Program A, but do either pay enough for you to live like a real grownup when you move away from a possible barter economy in the community where you have always lived?

My favorite cost of living calculator is https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/
A salary of $30,000 in Columbus, Ohio should increase to $60,265 in Boston, Massachusetts
A salary of $30,000 in Indianapolis, Indiana should increase to $61,980 in Boston, Massachusetts
A salary of $30,000 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin should increase to $60,533 in Boston, Massachusetts
A salary of $30,000 in Atlanta, Georgia should increase to $47,210 in Boston, Massachusetts
A salary of $30,000 in College Station, Texas should increase to $54,975 in Boston, Massachusetts
A salary of $30,000 in Little Rock, Arkansas should increase to $61,769 in Boston, Massachusetts


What's my experience?  I read a ton on academia and I particularly follow the quit lit.  Dismiss me all you like for not being in the humanities, but arguing only from personal experience is how Professor Sparklepony says things like "don't expect a job at the end" and yet within rounding of everyone expects an academic job at the end and is angry when the statistics apply to them as well.

[dr_codex]

I can think of a few places where program prestige would really matter. Clark University's geography department comes to mind, as do some creative writing programs. Almost everything else would be less important than an Ivy brand.

There are two ways to think about hiring. One is the statistical: Polly and Spork have provided some of the broader studies, and you've done your homework on the individual departments. You seem pretty clear-eyed about the odds.

The other way to think about hiring is to acknowledge that specific decisions are overdetermined. Somebody on the hiring committee may have sworn a blood oath never to hire another Harvard grad. Or SLC grad. Or Southerner. Or whatever. They may / may not hire interdisciplinary candidates. And next year's search committee might do the opposite. They may think you have too many publications. Or not enough. Or the wrong kind.

The only general advice that I can offer is to try to cover all of the basis, at least a little bit. Do some kind of teaching; ideally a section of your own design, but definitely whatever they will pay for. Do at least a little bit of service. (Your administration experience may or may not already tick that box.) Publish the best work that you have, as soon as it is good enough. Go to at least one national conference, and become a member of the relevant professional societies.

And, of course, network. That's why people go to Harvard, even if other programs are "better" in some way; the exception is when the people with whom you want to network are at the other place. Even in a big field, there aren't that many people in one's are of specialization, and doors get opened more often by people who know you, either in person or by reputation.

I was pretty clueless, both when applying to grad schools and when applying for jobs. There's a lot of good advice on this forum (and on the old CHE one, if you search the archives). But you'll notice that your queries are being absorbed into a much bigger, and long-running, argument about the future of higher education. The advice upthread to ask a mentor in the field or two is solid, but needs to be supplemented by your own research, which you've done.

Honest response? If you are picking between programs #1 and #2, you are way ahead of the game. If your analysis is correct (that you'll stand a better chance of getting a job with Harvard, but a better chance of an academic position in the filed with not-Harvard), then it's even more important to scrutinize the placement rates, and to think long and hard about how the academic landscape might change in five years.

Good luck, and congratulations.

dc

[Aster]

If I get an online PhD from Southern New Hampshire University will I be respected?

Because Southern New Hampshire University sounds like a fancy New Englandy Ive League place.

[fourhats]

About a hundred years ago I was in the same position to decide between graduate schools in a humanities field. One was very good, and offered a nice stipend. Others were more prestigious. I went to my mentor, who said to me, "graduate school will last several years, but your degree will follow you forever." I opted for the prestigious one.

The first thing that happened when I got there was that I began working with a couple of faculty I admired, and ended up switching to their field. I hadn't predicted that.

The second thing is that the degree has indeed followed me forever. Even now, when I apply for a grant, I have to fill in what schools I got my degrees. I know that my Ph.D. institution helped me in my job searches, and after that I'm sure it helped in my ability to get grants and to publish.

[Ruralguy]

I did the opposite. More prestigious program did not offer me a stipend. Less prestigious did.
One mentor said go with less prestigious because they offered money. Another said go for prestigious and wait tables. I knew I didn't want to wait tables or work as a stock clerk in a grocery store again, so I went for less prestigious. It was also in a much more fun location.

That eventually got me a prestigious (although I would hardly say most prestigious) post-doc.

More "eventually"'s and I got my current job at a 100-ish ranked SLAC.

By the way, the more prestigious program was not Harvard or even close. It was a flagship state school.  The less prestigious was a private in the Northeast.

[gael2020]

I've been going through placements of both places with a fine tooth comb. The placement rates are almost parallel (60ish) percent. However, interestingly enough it seems that the second school places its students much quicker while the Harvard students either post doc for a few years or do alt-ac work. I don't really know what information to base my decision on - obviously the second school is top ranked in the interdisciplinary field and has been doing well at placing its graduates into interdisciplinary jobs. (and is a more supportive environment btw) But the future of Ethnic and American Studies is precarious and seeing as how there are like 5 Ethnic/AMST jobs per year, I don't know how this program is doing as well as it is. On the other hand is Harvard which has the name which will always last. Don't know how to process this information.

[polly_mer]

How many people enrolled in each program?  A handful of new graduates total in both programs for five total TT jobs in the nation would indicate that only these graduates are getting the jobs and one just waits until a job opens.  Reports from anger lit indicates that some fields are at that point where only certain program graduates get any of the desirable TT jobs.

I will also mention that 60% is only slightly more than half.  What will you do when you're in the wrong half?

[secundem_artem]

I've been going through placements of both places with a fine tooth comb. The placement rates are almost parallel (60ish) percent. However, interestingly enough it seems that the second school places its students much quicker while the Harvard students either post doc for a few years or do alt-ac work. I don't really know what information to base my decision on - obviously the second school is top ranked in the interdisciplinary field and has been doing well at placing its graduates into interdisciplinary jobs. (and is a more supportive environment btw) But the future of Ethnic and American Studies is precarious and seeing as how there are like 5 Ethnic/AMST jobs per year, I don't know how this program is doing as well as it is. On the other hand is Harvard which has the name which will always last. Don't know how to process this information.

Unlike those above, I do not read your posts as someone going into this with your eyes open.  I mean  you no disrespect, but your concern for prestige and cutting edge research suggests to me you have the stars in your eyes.  And again, please no disrespect meant at all, but could it be that your modest background and undistinguished undergraduate institution have left you with the belief that a "life of the mind" is  life to be devoutly wished?  It sounds great but even Harold Bloom had to make mortgage payments and it seems unlikely that Ethnic and American studies is anything other than a very long-shot bet.

The way to process this, as suggested by spork and polly above, is DON'T.

[gael2020]

Unlike those above, I do not read your posts as someone going into this with your eyes open.  I mean  you no disrespect, but your concern for prestige and cutting edge research suggests to me you have the stars in your eyes.  And again, please no disrespect meant at all, but could it be that your modest background and undistinguished undergraduate institution have left you with the belief that a "life of the mind" is  life to be devoutly wished?  It sounds great but even Harold Bloom had to make mortgage payments and it seems unlikely that Ethnic and American studies is anything other than a very long-shot bet.

The way to process this, as suggested by spork and polly above, is DON'T.

My concern with prestige and cutting edge research is entirely situated within its relationship to employment. All of my concerns, questions, and digging have been in relationship to my employment prospects for a tenure track job. Programs with strong resources, housed within a prestigious institution, and a reputation for cutting edge scholarship and/or faculty are all factors that contribute to a program's placement rates. And I've dug up/tracked the placements for both program for the past 10 years to make sure I'm making an informed decision based on empirical data rather than optimistic rhetoric.

I don't know how you could extrapolate from what I've said that I'm going into a doctoral program in pursuit of some romanticized life of the mind, to "change the academy" or to tell people I went to Harvard.

[Hibush]

I don't know how you could extrapolate from what I've said that I'm going into a doctoral program in pursuit of some romanticized life of the mind, to "change the academy" or to tell people I went to Harvard.

It is because you entered a long conversation that has previously included some astoundingly naive people who got PhDs in the humanities and are now surprised that a TT job isn't sitting there for them so that they can engage in a romantic life of the mind.

A lot of assumptions were made about you before you had a chance to say much because so many have asked similar questions.

You seem to be a resourceful person who is at low risk of waiting tables if you don't get that ideal TT position. What will matter most in grad school is what kind of resources will be available to you, such as regular intellectual discussion with the top minds in the field, regular contact with important people in your field globally so they know what you bring to the table, and whatever research tools you will need.

To help you decide, call some of the people you hope to engage with at each school. Call some of the grad students. It may turn out that the people who you hope will be good are jerks, semiretired, or otherwise unlikely to be big assets. You can discover whether they are so high in the ivory towers that they have no idea what the jobs situation is. You might also discover some new faculty who will be the bigshots of the 2030s.

[Caracal]

I don't know how you could extrapolate from what I've said that I'm going into a doctoral program in pursuit of some romanticized life of the mind, to "change the academy" or to tell people I went to Harvard.

It is because you entered a long conversation that has previously included some astoundingly naive people who got PhDs in the humanities and are now surprised that a TT job isn't sitting there for them so that they can engage in a romantic life of the mind.

I continue to think that these people are actually pretty few in number. It might help if we stopped assuming they need to be addressed in conversations where nobody has expressed any particularly naive sentiments. Gael has said multiple times that they understand that entering a interdisciplinary humanities graduate program may well not result in a tenure track job. Good advice is about making sure the person asking has thought about the questions involved, not yelling at them for not making the choice you think they should make.

There are more questions that might be worth thinking about such as: Are there any other ways that you could pursue this interest outside of the academy that might appeal to you? What about the interdisciplinary approach do you find so appealing? If you went to a more traditional department, would that make you more competitive for a wider variety of jobs, or put you in a subfield with more demand?

[polly_mer]

I don't know how you could extrapolate from what I've said that I'm going into a doctoral program in pursuit of some romanticized life of the mind, to "change the academy" or to tell people I went to Harvard.

It is because you entered a long conversation that has previously included some astoundingly naive people who got PhDs in the humanities and are now surprised that a TT job isn't sitting there for them so that they can engage in a romantic life of the mind.

I continue to think that these people are actually pretty few in number. It might help if we stopped assuming they need to be addressed in conversations where nobody has expressed any particularly naive sentiments.

Do you read any of the media where many would-be academics gather, Caracal?  You can't or you wouldn't estimate the total number as "few".  It's few in terms of how many people in the US have graduate degrees in any field.  However, that frustration was loud among humanities and certain social science fields in the early 1990s when I started college and started reading CHE, The Atlantic, Harper's Bazaar, New York Times, and The New Yorker in the college library.

That frustration is now deafening anywhere that a fair number of humanities faculty gather and people who finished their graduate degrees recently are somehow now just finding out now that the job market is beyond terrible and even the adjunct positions are declining rapidly as institutions close, go to canned courses with remote adjuncts, or even consolidate courses to be huge (reports of sections that are literally more than a thousand students are appearing with more frequency in articles on higher ed in the US).

Doing the research to come up with the information that a given field is averaging 5 (FIVE!) TT jobs nationally in recent years is a great start.  Continuing the conversation of "do I go to this program or that program" with no indication of how those five jobs compare to the number of job seekers is naive. 

Continuing the conversation with no data related to how academic institutions are changing to meet changing student demographics is naive.  Assuming that five annual TT jobs will continue indefinitely and that these two programs will continue to place graduates into those jobs seems naive.

In addition, a thread with a public discussion is not just for the person asking advice.  People who are reading along as lurkers need to know about the ongoing conversation regarding graduate school in certain fields, what all the considerations are, and why the logical conclusion in most cases ought to be "don't go unless you meet all these somewhat unusual criteria".

If you've already married well, OP, then you, too, could think about doing a graduate degree for the intellectual satisfaction, although go reread jersyjay's post because many people find that graduate school, or even the life of the mind as secumdem_artem wrote, isn't all they thought it would be.

[mamselle]

I want to point out that interdisciplinary studies, in their best incarnations, help to address very uneven approaches by scholars who have expertise in one field and try to appropriate (without really understanding) some aspects of work in another field that they find congenial to their own, or that interests them as a sideline, or just seems sexy at the moment.

That has been a huge problem in the liturgical arts: as one reviewer noted, "[...author] has applied a thin veneer of art historical understanding to a deeper knowledge of theology without quite understanding either very well. In fact, most artists understand theology better than most theologians understand the arts." (the author in question was someone who was riffing on Tillich's late interest in the arts, trying to piggyback on that and his own wife's dedicated expertise in art history without a lot of analytical success).

Likewise, in liturgical dance history, people have tried to use visual sources to "prove" the existence of danced worship at times and in places where that is neither was the sources were showing, nor were visual works then produced as documentary evidence but as metaphoric illustrations of specific ideas or contextual relationships.

In one case, I had to stop helping a friend who was writing a paper on a particular kind of imagery because she wouldn't listen to a very good scholar's input on what she was trying to say (and wouldn't do any of the pertinent readings that person was suggesting, saying they were 'irrelevant to the topic').

She didn't really seem to value the art historical work of several reliable folks as useful input to the theological point she was trying to make--leveraging the theological mare's nest of ideas she'd constructed out of whole cloth over a couple decades of work on the visual source that gave much more concise (if contrary) input on the imagery she was trying to invoke.

She got the art historian to drop off her committee, got someone else to read for her, and passed her defense....sigh.

A good interdisciplinary program requires solid preparation in both (or all) the disciplines in question, and holds students' feet to the fire in terms of being responsible scholars in each area they are working in.

Conversation between, but not irresponsible conflation of, findings in each area are upheld as a valid pursuit, while a single-focus program might look good and produce people who are quite sure of themselves--but who skew the written record and give birth to craziness down the line.

Just sayin'....

M.